Sun Bank of Miami v. E. C. Ernst, Inc.

395 So. 2d 282, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18988
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 17, 1981·No. No. 80-743·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed on the basis that appellant’s right of set-off was negatived by: (a) the non-mutuality of claims, Everglade Cypress Co. v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 675, 148 So. 192 (1933); (b) the characterization of the account as an account for a special purpose, Tunnicliffe v. Sears, 107 Fla. 669, 148 So. 197 (1932); Coyle v. Pan American Bank of Miami, 377 So.2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Bank of West Orange v. Associates Discount Corp., 197 So.2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 556 (Fla.1967); and (c) the knowl-. edge of appellant that the disputed funds were deposited by appellee rather than appellant’s debtor, 4715 Realty Corp. v. Central Bank and Trust Co., 301 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Central Bank and Trust Co. v. Shipman, 127 So.2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sun Bank of Miami v. E. C. Ernst, Inc., 395 So. 2d 282, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18988 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

395 So. 2d 282 (Sun Bank of Miami v. E. C. Ernst, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coyle v. Pan American Bank of Miami
377 So. 2d 213 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
4715 Realty Corp. v. CENT. BK & TRUST CO.
301 So. 2d 792 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Tunnicliffe, as Liqdr. v. Sears
148 So. 197 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Everglade Cypress Co. v. Tunnicliffe, as Liqdr.
148 So. 192 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Shipman
127 So. 2d 706 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)